Sorry, lots of blogs today. Inspiration strikes and all that.
If you watch as much Dave as I do then you'll have seen this clip a few times. And seriously whichever researcher who found this for Would I Lie To You is a genuis. Just thought I'd post it up because I remembered it and it made me laugh.
Monday, 4 October 2010
Dreams, and Cylons taking over the world.
Dreams.
And no, not dreams in terms of hopes for the future.
Those, if you're interested are a simple trinity:
1) Get a job writing.
2) Own a basketball team.
3) Marry Jesse Lacey
No, this blog is about dreams that you dream about when you sleep. And don't get me wrong, I know how boring it is to listen to people rant on about obscure dreams they've had. I do a bit of that in a moment, but there is a reason for it. I'm not just trying to entertain you with a dream annecdote.
I hear it sometimes, people say "I had a dream last night about..." and almost immediately someone will say. "When you dream about... that means...".
Now.
I would like to use a case in point here, with the dream I had last night:
Robots had taken over the Earth (Cylons from Battlestar Galactica to be precise). I was the last person left alive.
My only companion was this little sort of hamster type thing that communicated with me by smiling.
I think it was female.
I can't be sure.
Walking around through wartorn England I entered a hospital. I should add at this point that there was a voice over telling me what was going on, that's how I knew about the robots, and how I know the following:
The Cylons had killed everyone. Even everyone in the hospital. Even the babies in the maternity ward.
BUT they had left 1 baby still alive.
I approached the crib. And picked up this baby. And it wasn't a baby. It was a human leg. An alive human leg. Not attached to anything, but definitely alive. It couldn't talk or anything. I don't know if it was a male or female leg. Just a leg.
So that was it. I was on my own with a hamster and a leg. I also wasn't sure whether the hamster was real or whether it was in my imagination.
So... who is gonna analyse that for me?
I can tell you where the Cylons came from. I watched Battlestar Galactica before I went to bed.
But possibly not real hamsters who communicate by smiling? And one remaining baby being a leg?
I'm sorry but these are the thoughts of a lunatic. The first point of this is you couldn't possibly interpret that dream rationally. You could talk about being alone, I suppose. But show me a textbook with leg babies. That is just a weird creative decision on the part of my sleeping head.
And that's the second point I wanted to make.
How fucking creative is the unconcious mind. That is a weird story my mind made up to keep me entertained as I spelt. Of all the things it could have thought of.
The third point is why, when people talk about dreams in fiction they talk about highly simplistic things.
"I have a recurring dream where I am falling"
"I have a dream where I am drowning" etc
My dreams, and indeed no-one who ever tells me about their dreams ever, ever has anything that simple. They always contain a drawn out and fairly complex narrative.
And no, not dreams in terms of hopes for the future.
Those, if you're interested are a simple trinity:
1) Get a job writing.
2) Own a basketball team.
3) Marry Jesse Lacey
No, this blog is about dreams that you dream about when you sleep. And don't get me wrong, I know how boring it is to listen to people rant on about obscure dreams they've had. I do a bit of that in a moment, but there is a reason for it. I'm not just trying to entertain you with a dream annecdote.
I hear it sometimes, people say "I had a dream last night about..." and almost immediately someone will say. "When you dream about... that means...".
Now.
I would like to use a case in point here, with the dream I had last night:
Robots had taken over the Earth (Cylons from Battlestar Galactica to be precise). I was the last person left alive.
My only companion was this little sort of hamster type thing that communicated with me by smiling.
I think it was female.
I can't be sure.
Walking around through wartorn England I entered a hospital. I should add at this point that there was a voice over telling me what was going on, that's how I knew about the robots, and how I know the following:
The Cylons had killed everyone. Even everyone in the hospital. Even the babies in the maternity ward.
BUT they had left 1 baby still alive.
I approached the crib. And picked up this baby. And it wasn't a baby. It was a human leg. An alive human leg. Not attached to anything, but definitely alive. It couldn't talk or anything. I don't know if it was a male or female leg. Just a leg.
So that was it. I was on my own with a hamster and a leg. I also wasn't sure whether the hamster was real or whether it was in my imagination.
So... who is gonna analyse that for me?
I can tell you where the Cylons came from. I watched Battlestar Galactica before I went to bed.
But possibly not real hamsters who communicate by smiling? And one remaining baby being a leg?
I'm sorry but these are the thoughts of a lunatic. The first point of this is you couldn't possibly interpret that dream rationally. You could talk about being alone, I suppose. But show me a textbook with leg babies. That is just a weird creative decision on the part of my sleeping head.
And that's the second point I wanted to make.
How fucking creative is the unconcious mind. That is a weird story my mind made up to keep me entertained as I spelt. Of all the things it could have thought of.
The third point is why, when people talk about dreams in fiction they talk about highly simplistic things.
"I have a recurring dream where I am falling"
"I have a dream where I am drowning" etc
My dreams, and indeed no-one who ever tells me about their dreams ever, ever has anything that simple. They always contain a drawn out and fairly complex narrative.
Basketball, and how it is wholesome family entertainment.
"Would you give him head?" said the girl, pointing at Evaldas Zabas, Worthing Thunder's Lithuanian star player.
This was the first line of their conversation I had accidentally evesdropped and, given that the tone of the sentence was very nonchalant, I don't like to imagine how many blowjob related questions she had asked about basketball players previously.
"Oh yeah, I'd give him head," she replied "I'd do anything for him"
"I'm gonna go get some fucking chips"
Fascinating lives these teenagers lead.
This was the first line of their conversation I had accidentally evesdropped and, given that the tone of the sentence was very nonchalant, I don't like to imagine how many blowjob related questions she had asked about basketball players previously.
"Oh yeah, I'd give him head," she replied "I'd do anything for him"
"I'm gonna go get some fucking chips"
Fascinating lives these teenagers lead.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
Trust, and how this blog has nothing to do with it.
I don't usually have trouble finishing blogs. I don't put a lot of thought into them. Well, I do, but not in the sense that I worry about how they will be perceived, I just write what I think. This blog serves a dual purpose: to document things that I find interesting and to be a sounding board for things that bother me, both in general and directly personal.
The problem though, is these things are easily confused.
I've tried to write this two or three times now, the general theme is trusting people, and when I write it, I'm trying to make a general point, I'm not trying to use it as a thinly veiled excuse to have a go at people.
It is an issue becuase of the way some people use the internet/blogs as a disgustingly cowardly way of having a go at people without saying it to their faces. You see it in Facebook statuses sometimes, and in blogs. It's childish, and not something I would like to be accused of.
If I want to have a go at someone I'll do it exactly the way it should be done: behind their back in a conversation with a friend, while maintaining a perfectly amicable relationship on the surface. Cos the point is, most things are superficial, just little annoying things not worth actually arguing over. You just want to make it known that it annoys you, and then you can go back to whatever relationship you had with the person, and no harm is done. I like arguing, but I like don't like seriously arguing.
So yeah, I just worry that it's easy to take things personally, especially when the point is vague.
When I re-read what I had written it could certainly have been misconstrued. It's said that as soon as you start believing something you are immediately blinded to all the sensible arguments against it. I think that's true. I've had that experience, at least.
And see how this blog has not become about trust at all, I'll try to write something about trust one day.
The problem though, is these things are easily confused.
I've tried to write this two or three times now, the general theme is trusting people, and when I write it, I'm trying to make a general point, I'm not trying to use it as a thinly veiled excuse to have a go at people.
It is an issue becuase of the way some people use the internet/blogs as a disgustingly cowardly way of having a go at people without saying it to their faces. You see it in Facebook statuses sometimes, and in blogs. It's childish, and not something I would like to be accused of.
If I want to have a go at someone I'll do it exactly the way it should be done: behind their back in a conversation with a friend, while maintaining a perfectly amicable relationship on the surface. Cos the point is, most things are superficial, just little annoying things not worth actually arguing over. You just want to make it known that it annoys you, and then you can go back to whatever relationship you had with the person, and no harm is done. I like arguing, but I like don't like seriously arguing.
So yeah, I just worry that it's easy to take things personally, especially when the point is vague.
When I re-read what I had written it could certainly have been misconstrued. It's said that as soon as you start believing something you are immediately blinded to all the sensible arguments against it. I think that's true. I've had that experience, at least.
And see how this blog has not become about trust at all, I'll try to write something about trust one day.
Saturday, 2 October 2010
Of, and the difficulty of explaining what it is.
I get annoyed when people write "could of". Aggravatingly, though, I'm not too good at explaining why.
I can tell them that what they are trying to say is "could have" and the problem comes from the fact that it is almost exclusively pronounced "could've" these days. The next question is inevitable: what's wrong with "could of"?
The explanation is extremely simple. "Of" isn't a verb, and if you remove the "could" before it, that becomes obvious:
"I could have gone swimming" becomes "I have gone swimming"
"I could of gone swimming" becomes "I of gone swimming".
This is difficult to explain, however, because the chances are if you're someone who doesn't know the difference between "could've" and "could of", you probably don't know what a verb is, either. Not due to stupidity or anything, just because the rules of grammar are not interesting to you... or perhaps because of stupidity.
Second language users of English don't have this problem, this is because they have to reconstruct what they want to say, they've had to learn the rules of English. For first language users this is a natural process. For example learning other tenses in different langauges seems very difficult for us, but in English we just naturally understand.
I can tell them that what they are trying to say is "could have" and the problem comes from the fact that it is almost exclusively pronounced "could've" these days. The next question is inevitable: what's wrong with "could of"?
The explanation is extremely simple. "Of" isn't a verb, and if you remove the "could" before it, that becomes obvious:
"I could have gone swimming" becomes "I have gone swimming"
"I could of gone swimming" becomes "I of gone swimming".
This is difficult to explain, however, because the chances are if you're someone who doesn't know the difference between "could've" and "could of", you probably don't know what a verb is, either. Not due to stupidity or anything, just because the rules of grammar are not interesting to you... or perhaps because of stupidity.
Second language users of English don't have this problem, this is because they have to reconstruct what they want to say, they've had to learn the rules of English. For first language users this is a natural process. For example learning other tenses in different langauges seems very difficult for us, but in English we just naturally understand.
Friday, 1 October 2010
A Correction
Wear It Pink Day was not, as I previously stated, 28th September, but in fact the 28th October.
So you all have the oppurtunity to wear pink and donate money to fight breast cancer.
So you all have the oppurtunity to wear pink and donate money to fight breast cancer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)